I think that a debate about the fairness or effectiveness of a forum's moderation is akin to a debate about the government of our nation. The mere idea of closing a topic of debate about the governing body - whether it be governing a country or a forum, is tyranical -- completely against the concept of the Constitution that we hold so dear.

Is over-moderation on a website that debates the governing body (and document) of our nation ironic? Hypocritical? Just?

I see the irony of what you're saying, but I have to defend the rather strict "rules" of AD. AD is not a government. AD has no meaningful power over you. It's very easy to find another forum with looser "rules."

AD is for fun. If I go to the movies to enjoy myself, I won't be surprised if the management asks me to shut off my cell phone, to not throw garbage on the floor, and so on. When I come here to AD, I expect to be told what the "rules" are and they expect me to follow them.

I am sure that our distinguished hosts welcome are constructive criticism on the "rules." That seems to make more sense than debating them here in public.

Well, yes and no.

If the debate is within the agreed rules that everyone signs up for, and gets closed down anyway, then yes, that is a tyrannical act.

On the other hand, if that debate breaks the rules that everyone agrees to abide by before signing up - an analogy might be if a convicted felon stood for office, or if a foreign-born person ran for president (I don't quite know what the rules are for standing for office in the USA, so forgive me if I've got these examples wrong) - then the establishment would be within its rights to stop that line of debate. As long as they didn't break the rules themselves in doing so, that is.

But then, in terms of debate sites, even the most progressive and interesting - and I'd say this one was about the best I've seen - is more like a benign dictatorship than a democracy, since they don't spontaneously appear out of the ether, but have to be built by someone.

EDITED TO ADD:
Actually, Victoria's got in bang on with the cinema analogy. They are service providers, and we are consumers. If they don't like us, they can bar us. If we don't like them, we can take our custom elsewhere. A simple enough transaction.

When a website starts levying taxes from its members then it can be considered a governing body. Otherwise, you are merely a guest in a privately owned arena (just like a grocery store, movie theatre or mall). When you participate it is voluntary. No one is forcing you to do anything. In the course of volunteering you are agreeing to a contract in most cases (usually the TOS and the Rules of the website). If you don't follow those terms, those in charge have the right to determine the course of action.

Let us also not forget that the volunteers are not citizens. No one has a vote in how a grocery store is run. Customers do have recourse to suggest how the store should be run and the owners have the right to determine if the suggestion is useful/implementable or to reject it.

The beauty of it all is that if you don't like store A and they refuse to take your suggestion, you always have the right to leave and never come back and go to store B, C, or D instead. We can not jail you for leaving (i.e. not paying your taxes).

There is a HUGE difference between a privately controlled entity and a governing body; it's almost too hard to compare.

I was tempted to move this out of the Constitutional forum since I see no connection whatsoever. I ask you, perspective, to please explain why you felt this discussion belonged here.

Just for the record, I have no beef with the moderation here.

In the past, I've been in some heated debates with moderators of other sites and they've deleted posts of mine (posts that weren't against the rules).

I know that this site isn't like that. If I find it is, I surely will be gone. Graphical interface is nice, but graphics can only do so much.

I understand that this place doesn't have a Constitution. I didn't check off the box next to "I've read the AD Bill of Rights". One doesn't exist.

For all I know, the founders of this forum don't even agree with the Constitution. They aren't necessarily patriots, I see the error in my logic. I was hasty to make an assumption that all Americans would support the concept of a Constitution. I even made a worse assumption that the administration was even American.

Just because someone likes a concept, relishes an idea of "freedom" doesn't mean they individually are strong enough to put into effect in a small scale environment. I suppose freedom will always require the strength of numbers to keep it alive. When one or two people have complete control of something, individual rights will most definately suffer. Inadvertant prejudices will always prevail. Luckily in the real world there are tangible, defined venues to rectify errors in judgement from the judgement makers. Luckily there are full-time, paid judgement-error rectifiers.

Everybody has the right to speak; nobody has the right to be heard.

That applies to every facet of American culture, including America's Debate.

Complaints from rule breakers are taken less seriously than those who follow the rules. This is modeled off of the fact that convicted felons can't vote, which as of last count the forum supports (37 to 19).

We allow people to say their piece, and close the topic once the usefulness of their comments have been exhausted.

In regards to moderation, we do whatever is necessary to uphold the Rules and Terms of Service, and we will continue to do so.

Mike

I think there is a Constitution on here and it comes down to the rules. Mostly I think the moderaters bend over backwards to let the conversation flow naturally. I think it comes down to this, obey the unwritten rules and there will be no reason for writting them. Free speach requires repsonsible people and I think the concensus on here is strong enough to deal with the occasional infraction.

Keep in mind that a Constitution gives much more power to the central authority. That gets complicated. I believe in free speach for everybody and I don't think I want to be taxed for posting on AD. I really don't want to have some kind of a cyber-sheriff imposing a cyber-repliven on my computer for not paying my tax. I think the first amendment, at least in principle, is alive and doing fine on here.